I greatly disagree with the Jan. 12 editorial on HJR-3 (“HJR-3 will only hurt Indiana”). I think it clouded the intent of the law by trying to stir up irrational fears.

First, approving HJR-3 allows it to be voted on by the people, just as the citizens in over 30 other states have had the freedom to do. Do politicians who oppose allowing us to vote think that they should be our caretakers because we are incapable of making an intelligent decisions or are they afraid that we will prove them wrong?

Should government be in the business of defining words? If they change this, what will be next? From the beginning marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. HJR-3 is only upholding what we have always understood marriage to be.

The editorial called the leaders “mean-spirited,” made several other negative comments and said that this protection of marriage between a man and a woman would send a message to gays that they are not welcome here. That sounds a bit intolerant of other opinions. Gays deserve the compassion and acceptance of others as anyone else does, but they do not fit the meaning of a marriage, just as a heterosexual couple just living together does not.

The editorial also mentioned twice that we would not attract “the best and brightest minds” if this were to pass. Gays make up 2 to 5 percent of the population. If they chose not to come here, I think that we would be able to find plenty of bright minds in the other 95 to 98 percent.

HJR-3 is not going to destroy our state, but leaders who try to control us with scare tactics or worse, take away our right to vote, will destroy our freedom.